Something I got in a chain mail...

Musician playing violin in a Washington DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007.

He played six Bach pieces for about 60 minutes. During that time approximately 2,000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After:

3 minutes
A middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.

4 minutes
The violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping, continued to walk.

6 minutes
A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

10 minutes
A three year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly, as the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced them to move on.

45 minutes
The musician played. Only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32.

1 hour:
He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

This is a real story. The Washington Post, as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities, arranged the entire scenario. Playing incognito, no one knew the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the best musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days prior to this, Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the tickets averaged $100 per seat.

The questions raised:
In a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty; do we stop to appreciate it; do we recognize talent in such an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be:

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ....... How many other things are we missing?

While the USDA has changed its mind about canceling the "pilot" Universal Feeding Program that has been active in Philadelphia for almost two decades, the issue served to bring up another important point - fact checking!

Most, if not all, media and politicians (i.e. Philadelphia Inquirer, Senator Arlen Specter) reported that Provision 2, the alternative that would had replace the Universal Feeding Program, would leave students hungry because paper applications would be too big of an obstacle to free/reduced lunches. However, reading the USDA's Provision 2 Guidelines reveals that in reality, students would still get their free meals. While there's not much information regarding the Universal Feeding Program available, it appears that a school must meet a certain socioeconomic criteria that proves roughly 72-75% of its student population would qualify for free/reduced lunches - if this is met, then all students would be provided free lunches. Under Provision 2, schools would have to distribute applications in the first year of the Program to get an idea of the percentages of qualifying free/reduced/paid lunches in the school (for reimbursement purposes). However, all students will still get a free lunch regardless of whether they file an application or whether they qualify for a free meal.

So if all students get their free lunches anyway, the only critical consideration is which program offers the lower error rate in terms of calculating the percentages of qualifying free/reduced/paid lunches used for school reimbursements from the federal government. Differences in these percentages would effectively shift the cost of the lunches between the local and federal governments.

This sticking point is something that has been grossly misrepresented - more so not represented at all - by the media. It's not who gets fed, it's who's forking out the cash that's the issue.

Whether you agree with her or not, Gail Collins’ fusion of political satire with journalism makes her entertaining to read. I enjoyed reading her back and forth commentary with fellow New York Times columnist David Brooks in the run up to the 2008 election. I feel like she has a good idea of what Americans are feeling in their guts and is the only journalist at the New York Times who is brave enough to tell it like it is, regardless of party lines or ideology.

An interesting, yet funny, yet true video from NYT: Life After Wharton

Wish I got a pep talk.